Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:29:44.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

China English or Chinese English

Reviewing the China English movement through the Kachruvian lens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2018

Li Yiyang
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the last 20 years, the term ‘China English’ has been advanced as the most appropriate name for the variety of English that better expresses Chinese sociocultural realities and distinguishes the variety from the pejoratively perceived ‘Chinese English’ or ‘Chinglish’ (Du & Jiang, 2003; Jiang & Du, 2003; Meilin & Xiaoqiong, 2006). The demarcation between ‘China’ and ‘Chinese’, it is argued (Wang, 1991; Li, 1993; He & Li, 2009), is necessary if English as used by Chinese speakers is to gain recognition as something other than ‘bad’ English. Although no consensus regarding the definition of China English has yet formed among those who argue for the adoption of ‘China English’, characteristics of the variety can be inferred and the characteristics are used to confirm that ‘China English’ as a legitimate variety does exist, that it exhibits features of linguistic creativity rather than interference, suggesting a nativized educated variety (Berns, 2011). However, in my view, arguments in favor of a new term, ‘China English’, have more to do with renaming and rebranding and less with providing new insights into the nature of this English.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Today , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 3 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguilar-Sanchez, J. 2005. ‘English in Costa Rica.’ World Englishes, 24(2), 161–172.Google Scholar
Bamiro, O. 1991. ‘Nigerian Englishes in Nigerian English literature.’ World Englishes, 10(1), 7–17.Google Scholar
Berns, M. 1988. ‘The cultural and linguistic context of English in West Germany.’ World Englishes, 7, 37–49.Google Scholar
Berns, M. 1990. Contexts of Competence: Social and Cultural Considerations in Language Teaching. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Berns, M. 1992. ‘Bilingualism with English as the other tongue: English in the German legal domain.’ World Englishes, 77(2/3), 155–161.Google Scholar
Berns, M. 1995a. ‘English in Europe: Whose language, which culture?’ International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
Berns, M. 1995b. ‘English in the European Union.’ English Today, 11(3), 3–11.Google Scholar
Berns, M. 2011. ‘Chineseness and world Englishes.’ Paper presented at the 16th Annual World Congress of Applied Linguistics, 1–11.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. 2002. ‘Chinese Englishes: From Canton jargon to global English.’ World Englishes, 21(2), 181–199.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. 2003. Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cheng, C. C. 1992. ‘Chinese varieties of English.’ In Kachru, B. B. (ed.), The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 162–177.Google Scholar
Dimova, S. 2005. ‘English shop signs in Macedonia.’ English Today, 24(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
Du, R. & Jiang, Y. 2003. ‘More About “China English” - A response to “Addressing queries on China English”.’ Foreign Language Education, 1, 37–41.Google Scholar
Eaves, M. 2011. ‘English, Chinglish or China English?’ English Today, 27(04), 64–70.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1966. ‘National sociolinguistic profile formulas.’ In Bright, W. (ed.), Sociolinguistics, Proceedings of the UCLA Sociolinguistics Conference. The Hague: Mouton, 309–324.Google Scholar
Fonzari, L. 1999. ‘English in the Estonian multicultural context.’ World Englishes, 18(1), 39–48.Google Scholar
Friedrich, P. 2001. ‘A sociolinguistic profile of English in Brazil: Issues of imperialism, dominance, and empowerment.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.Google Scholar
Ge, C. 1980. ‘Mantan you han yi ying wenti. [Random thoughts on some problems in Chinese-English translation.]’ Fanyi Tongxun [Chinese Translator's Journal], 2, 1–8.Google Scholar
Gil, J. & Adamson, B. 2011. ‘The English language in mainland China: A sociolinguistic profile.’ English Language Education Across Greater China, 23–45.Google Scholar
He, D. & Li, D. 2009. ‘Language attitudes and linguistic features in the “China English” debate.’ World Englishes, 28(1), 70–89.Google Scholar
Jia, G. & Xiang, M. 1997. ‘Wei zhongguo yingyu yi bian. [In defence of Chinese English.]’ Waiyu Yu Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Languages and Foreign Language Teaching], 5, 11–12.Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. 2002. ‘China English: Issues, studies and features.’ Asian Englishes, 5(2), 4–23.Google Scholar
Jiang, Y. & Du, R. 2003. ‘Youguan ‘zhongguo yingyu'de wenti’ [Issues on ‘China English’]. Waiyu Jiaoxue [Foreign Language Education], 24(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
Jin, H. 2002. ‘Hanying kuawenhua jiaoji fanyi zhong de China English. [China English in the intercultural translation between Chinese and English.]’ Guangdong Zhiye Jishu Shifan Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of Guangdong Polytechnic Normal University], 2, 72–78.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1976. ‘Models of English for the Third World: White man's linguistic burden or language pragmatics?’ TESOL Quarterly, 221–239.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1982. (ed.) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1983. The indianization of English: The English language in India. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1985a. ‘Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle.’ In Quirk, R., Widdowson, H. G. & Cantù, Y. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, 11–30.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1985b. ‘Institutionalized second language varieties.’ In Greenbaum, S. (ed.), The English Language Today. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 211–226.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1998. ‘English as an Asian language.’ Links & Letters, 5, 89–108.Google Scholar
Kasztalska, A. 2014. ‘English in contemporary Poland.’ World Englishes, 33(2), 242–262.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A. & Zhichang, X. 2002. ‘Chinese pragmatic norms and “China English”.’ World Englishes, 21(2), 269–279.Google Scholar
Li, W. 1993. ‘China English and Chinglish.’ Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 4, 18–24.Google Scholar
Matsuda, A. 2000. ‘Japanese attitudes toward English: A case study of high school students.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.Google Scholar
Michieka, M. 2005. ‘English in Kenya: A sociolinguistic profile.’ World Englishes, 24(2), 173–186.Google Scholar
Meilin, C. & Xiaoqiong, H. 2006. ‘Towards the acceptability of China English at home and abroad.’ English Today, 22(4), 44–52.Google Scholar
Nickels, E. 2005. ‘English in Puerto Rico.’ World Englishes, 24(2), 227–238.Google Scholar
Petzold, R. 1994. ‘Sociolinguistics of English in Hungary.’ Unpublished doctoral dissertation. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University.Google Scholar
Phillipson, R. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pulcini, V. 1997. ‘Attitudes toward the spread of English in Italy.’ World Englishes, 16(1), 77–85.Google Scholar
Reichelt, M. 2005. ‘English in Poland.’ World Englishes, 24(2), 217–226.Google Scholar
Schaub, M. 2000. ‘English in the Arab republic of Egypt.’ World Englishes, 19(2), 225–238.Google Scholar
Selvi, A. 2011. ‘World Englishes in the Turkish sociolinguistic context.’ World Englishes, 30(2), 182–199.Google Scholar
Shim, R. J. 1994. ‘Englishized Korean: Structure, status and attitudes.’ World Englishes, 13(2), 225–244.Google Scholar
Strevens, P. 1981. ‘Forms of English: An analysis of the variables.’ In Smith, L. (ed.), English for Cross-Cultural Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Ustinova, I. 2005. ‘English in Russia.’ World Englishes, 24(2), 239–252.Google Scholar
Wang, R. 1991. ‘Zhongguo yingyu shi keguan cunzai. [China English is an objective reality.]’ Jiefangjun Waiyu Xueyuan Xuebao [Journal of PLA Foreign Languages Institute], 1, 1–8.Google Scholar
Xiaoxia, C. 2006. ‘An understanding of “China English” and the learning and use of the English language in China.’ English Today, 22(04), 40–43.Google Scholar
Xie, Z. 1995. ‘Zhongguo yingyu: Kua wenhua jiaoji zhong de ganrao bianti. [China English: Interference variety in cross-cultural communication.]’ Xiandai Waiyu [Modern Foreign Languages], 4, 7–11.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. 2017. ‘Researching Chinese English: A meta-analysis of Chinese scholarship on Chinese English research.’ In Xu, Z.. He, D. & Deterding, D. (eds.), Researching Chinese English: The State of the Art. Cham: Springer, pp. 235–266.Google Scholar
Yong, Z. & Campbell, K. P. 1995. ‘English in China.’ World Englishes, 14(3), 377–390.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. 2012. ‘Chinese-English code-mixing among China's netizens.’ English Today, 28(3), 40–52.Google Scholar